User talk:Wissam hemadeh

You're about two comments from being blocked and I'd really rather not do that, so let's clear a few things up.

Sign your comments. It's really easy 4 tildes at the end of your comments will add the name and date stamp. (It's very difficult to follow discussion on talk pages when there's just a wall of text with no formatting and no signature)

We don't need to have a discussion and take a vote about how to deal with a simple, obviously flawed argument

Understand the scope in which you're working. Euthyphro shouldn't be a catch all for all moral arguments - feel free to create new pages

Make sure you're familiar with posting rules, guidelines and wiki formatting. Visit the forum and/or talk to people who post regularly.

Make sure you not only know who you're talking to, but make it clear who you're directing your comments to. Several of the comments you made, responding to me, don't seem to apply to me. The first step is to look at the history for a given page. You can see who has made changes and what changes they've made...that'll keep you from saying things like "your counter-arguments" to someone who didn't make them. (Note: At first, I took this to mean 'your arguments' as in 'your wiki'...but I'm not convinced you even knew that you were talking to the site owner.)

So, let's get to your actual comments, so we can clear the air and I can get back to work:

"Furthermore, I did not insinuate that the Euthyphro should address ALL moral argument but I was giving atheists a heads-up as to the modern moral argument where Euthyphro is useless and a new swift response should be made. Doesn't this require some collaboration and agreement on the counter-argument?"

— Wissan

The argument you presented is not an argument where Euthyphro is useless, it's just a moral argument that limits the use of Euthyphro as a response. We have an entire category for moral arguments, feel free to add a page for this one if it doesn't exist. No, we don't need collaboration and agreement on counter-arguments. We tend to list the counter arguments and they are then modified or removed. A wiki is a living document, we don't need a committee before adding a page and, in the end, a committee of 1 (me) may overturn the decisions.

"And if you really care about this site, I advise you to work on the kalam argument."

— Wissan

Thanks for your advice. There's a reason that I opened the wiki up to the public: I simply don't have time to do this, the TV show, the podcast, my ridiculously demanding regular job, e-mail, speaking engagements, ACA business and still find time to eat, sleep and occasionally socialize. There are many articles that simply don't exist. There are many that need some serious editing...but I've had to limit my efforts here to a bare minimum.

"Kalam is one of the best theistic arguments."

— Wissan

Which is only slightly more impressive than being the least smelly dung pile.

"Kalam is the only one which has been constantly used in recent debates. Have you been to any recent debates?"

— Wissan

Clearly you have no idea who you're talking to. I say that not because I would have expected any special fawning...but because if you knew, you couldn't have said something so monumentally stupid. Whether or not I've been to a recent debate (I have) is entirely irrelevant. I'm involved in debates 7 days a week, with real theists of all stripes and Kalam isn't nearly so common as you might think. That said, it deserves a thorough response.

"No, my friend. You are NOT ready to take on counter-apologetics if you have no idea of what the kalam cosmological argument for atheists is, which has been introduced by atheist philosopher quentin smith. Search for it, please do!"

— Wissan

I have done...and you missed the point. Your implication was that without Kalam for atheism, one isn't ready to take on Kalam as an apologetic. This is false and it ignores the burden of proof. Kalam stands or falls on its own merits and the existence or non-existence of a Kalam-for-atheism is a secondary concern. I've read Smith's essay. It's interesting and contingent upon unproven particulars. I don't find it particularly compelling and I don't find that it is in any way superior, as a response, than simply exposing the flaws in Kalam. - HOWEVER, it is an argument that should be included, both in the counters to Kalam and as a page in the arguments for the non-existence of a god.
Your implication that one isn't ready for counter-apologetics if they don't possess an exhaustive familiarity with a particular argument is without merit. My concern was that you seemed to be confused about how to address a simple and obviously flawed argument...that concern was based on a miscommunication. You were asking for feedback on how to address it at the wiki, not feedback about how one should respond to it. The fact that you still missed the point that one has no more need of the Kalam for atheism than they do of the atheists wager in order to address the apologetic is still a minor concern.

"You also have poor articles on 'quran and science' which could be a powerful atheistic tool against islam'. There's no mentioning of the 'inimatibility of quran' argument. There are many arguments you have missed. As you see, I have my hands full and it seems that you are not ready taking on counter-apologetics from the apparent poverty of this wiki."

— Wissan

Well, aren't we lucky you've arrived! There was no claim that the wiki is finished (as if it ever would be) or that it even had adequate coverage of most arguments...it's a resource, a work in progress and its state is entirely dependent on volunteer participation. While the goal would be to serve as the premiere treatment for these subjects no one has said we were anywhere close to that. Your comment is akin to walking into a garage where someone is building a car from scratch and saying, "Where's the odometer? There's no headliner or carpet? If you really cared about this car, you'd have a GPS system installed. You aren't ready for Daytona..." - and it's almost enough for me to revoke your welcome.

Fortunately, I'm not quite that reactionary. Go. Edit pages, add comments help improve the site like many others have done. Just sign your comments and try to be clear. - Sans Deity 10:37, 2 March 2010 (CST)

Contents

Sign Comments

Above the editing box on every page there are a bunch of icons. The second last one is a squiggly line that looks like a signature. If you click on it, it will insert your signature and the date/time. Or you can type two dashes and four tildes instead.

First person

I've seen a few things that you've written in the first person. Is that the standard procedure here?--Bob M 06:04, 15 May 2010 (CDT)

No, it's not really standard procedure but I write articles for several publications on the internet in the first person. You are encouraged to change them.--wissam hemadeh 14:38, 15 May 2010 (CDT)

Thank you for your encouragement. But I've mentioned previously that arguments against the existence of gods don't do much for me - as I feel that they are about as useful as arguments against the existence of Father Christmas. Consequently I'm reluctant to start editing such articles. I was just curious about why you did it that way. Thanks for responding.--Bob M 06:33, 16 May 2010 (CDT)

Numbered / bullet formatting

Edit this section to see how to properly format lists on wikis.

For numbered lists:

Statement the first.

Statement the second.

Statement the third.

For bullet lists:

Statement the first.

Statement the second.

Etc.

For non-bulleted or non-numbered lines within lists:

Statement the first.

Statement the second.

Corollary to the second.

Statement the third.

Mix-and-match happy meal combo of everything:

Numbered statement the first.

Item number one.

Item number two.

Numbered statement the second.

Item number one.

Corollary to item number one.

Item number two.

Item number three.

Numbered statement the third.

Corollary to statement the third.

Hope that helps your future edits. :)

Plagiarism and dumping

Could you please stop just copying articles here? Iron Chariots is not intended as a dumping site for every article on atheism ever written. It's easy to link to external sites, so instead of duplicating content here, it's best to just link. The Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines say not to just copy text from Wikipedia, and I think it's safe to assume that that applies to other sites as well. In addition, a lot of your edits have been plagiarized. Aside from being immoral, that's also illegal, and I'd rather this site didn't get in trouble with the law.

There's also a fundamental difference between a traditional article and a wiki page: a published article is static, whereas a wiki page is intended to be updated as new information becomes available, or as later authors come up with better ways of expressing what earlier authors meant. --Arensb 12:07, 18 June 2010 (CDT)

I'm also concerned that copying others atheists' arguments verbatim has the same inherent problem as when Christians do so in favor of Christianity. By simply copying it, they demonstrate that they do not understand the argument well enough to be able to answer objections to it. And most of the time they haven't even sat down and thought about how one could object to it. If we're doing the same thing, it will inevitably result in us coming across as clueless idiots... just like they do :) --Jaban 02:23, 19 June 2010 (CDT)

I realized that sometime earlier when everyone started deleting the articles. I will rewrite them all myself; I'll paraphrase and improve the articles. However, some articles are written by me but some people assumed a priori that they were plagiarized and consequently, they were deleted after my hard work. For example, I rewrote the argument from noncogitivism in my own words, which took alot of time. To solve this problem, I would like it if you would stay in touch with my editing and correct my mistakes. I know about the guidelines but I think my proposed procedure is more adequate for now. Sorry for the hassle.--wissam hemadeh 03:48, 21 June 2010 (CDT)

I just deleted Argument from Mind-Brain Dependence, because you took someone else's text and presented it as your own. This is called plagiarism, and is a serious offense. In universities, this is grounds for expulsion. If a reporter commits plagiarism, he can lose his job over it. So stop it. --Arensb 17:26, 24 June 2010 (CDT)

Not really! I took the argument, paraphrased the text, reorganized it, and summarized it. I also fixed some of its flaws. If you actually took the time to look at strongatheism.net's version, you'd see that it's completely different. Deleting what I wrote is more than disrespectful, it's kind of annoying. I made it clear that using another person's argument is not plagiarism. If you do consider it to be so, then I recommend you delete all the theistic and atheistic arguments (I'm sure "you" didn't write them yourself).--wissam hemadeh 15:43, 25 June 2010 (CDT)

A god is also said to be a personal being. By definition, personhood depends on consciousness (to whatever extent), the capacity of cognition, the capacity to interact with other persons. All of these things can be subsumed under the more general category of “mind” – a mind of some sort is necessary for personhood.

Some kind of material, computational substrate is a necessary condition for the existence of a mind (whether it is sufficient is a different, irrelevant issue). In humans, the brain is this substrate. We know this principle as a scientific fact, for five reasons. I quote here from The Case Against Immortality, by Keith Augustine.

By definition, personhood depends on consciousness (to whatever extent), the capacity of cognition, the capacity to interact with other persons. All of these things can be subsumed under the more general category of “mind” – a mind of some sort is necessary for personhood.

Some kind of material, computational substrate is a necessary condition for the existence of a mind (whether it is sufficient is a different, irrelevant issue). In humans, the brain is this substrate. This principle is a scientific fact, for five reasons.

You did not paraphrase or summarize. You did more than just present someone else's argument. You copied the original text word for word, and presented it as your own work. That's plagiarism.

And as a matter of fact, I do write my contributions to this wiki myself. --Arensb 17:18, 25 June 2010 (CDT)